Students' Achievement and

Homework Assignment
Strategies
The optimum time students should spend on homework has been
widely researched although the results are far from unanimous. The
main objective of this research is to analyze how homework
assignment strategies in schools affect students' academic
performance and the differences in students' time spent on homework.
Participants were a representative sample of Spanish adolescents (N =
26,543) with a mean age of 14.4 (±0.75), 49.7% girls. A test battery
was used to measure academic performance in four subjects: Spanish,
Mathematics, Science, and Citizenship. A questionnaire allowed the
measurement of the indicators used for the description of homework
and control variables. Two three-level hierarchical-linear models
(student, school, autonomous community) were produced for each
subject being evaluated. The relationship between academic results
and homework time is negative at the individual level but positive at
school level. An increase in the amount of homework a school assigns
is associated with an increase in the differences in student time spent
on homework. An optimum amount of homework is proposed which
schools should assign to maximize gains in achievement for students
overall.
The role of homework in academic achievement is an age-old debate (Walberg
et al., 1985) that has swung between times when it was thought to be a tool for
improving a country's competitiveness and times when it was almost
outlawed. So Cooper (2001) talks about the battle over homework and the
debates and rows continue (Walberg et al., 1985, 1986; Barber, 1986). It is
considered a complicated subject (Corno, 1996), mysterious (Trautwein and
Köller, 2003), a chameleon (Trautwein et al., 2009b), or Janus-faced (Flunger
et al., 2015). One must agree with Cooper et al. (2006) that homework is a
practice full of contradictions, where positive and negative effects coincide. As
such, depending on our preferences, it is possible to find data which support
the argument that homework benefits all students (Cooper, 1989), or that it
does not matter and should be abolished (Barber, 1986). Equally, one might
argue a compensatory effect as it favors students with more difficulties
(Epstein and Van Voorhis, 2001), or on the contrary, that it is a source of
inequality as it specifically benefits those better placed on the social ladder
(Rømming, 2011). Furthermore, this issue has jumped over the school wall
and entered the home, contributing to the polemic by becoming a common
topic about which it is possible to have an opinion without being well
informed, something that Goldstein (1960) warned of decades ago after
reviewing almost 300 pieces of writing on the topic in Education Index and
finding that only 6% were empirical studies.
The relationship between homework time and educational outcomes has
traditionally been the most researched aspect (Cooper, 1989; Cooper et al.,
2006; Fan et al., 2017), although conclusions have evolved over time. The first
experimental studies (Paschal et al., 1984) worked from the hypothesis that
time spent on homework was a reflection of an individual student's
commitment and diligence and as such the relationship between time spent on
homework and achievement should be positive. This was roughly the idea at
the end of the twentieth century, when more positive effects had been found
than negative (Cooper, 1989), although it was also known that the relationship
was not strictly linear (Cooper and Valentine, 2001), and that its strength
depended on the student's age- stronger in post-compulsory secondary
education than in compulsory education and almost zero in primary education
(Cooper et al., 2012). With the turn of the century, hierarchical-linear models
ran counter to this idea by showing that homework was a multilevel situation
and the effect of homework on outcomes depended on classroom factors (e.g.,
frequency or amount of assigned homework) more than on an individual's
attitude (Trautwein and Köller, 2003). Research with a multilevel approach
indicated that individual variations in time spent had little effect on academic
results (Farrow et al., 1999; De Jong et al., 2000; Dettmers et al.,
2010; Murillo and Martínez-Garrido, 2013; Fernández-Alonso et al.,
2014; Núñez et al., 2014; Servicio de Evaluación Educativa del Principado de
Asturias, 2016) and that when statistically significant results were found, the
effect was negative (Trautwein, 2007; Trautwein et al., 2009b; Lubbers et al.,
2010; Chang et al., 2014). The reasons for this null or negative relationship lie
in the fact that those variables which are positively associated with homework
time are antagonistic when predicting academic performance. For example,
some students may not need to spend much time on homework because they
learn quickly and have good cognitive skills and previous knowledge
(Trautwein, 2007; Dettmers et al., 2010), or maybe because they are not very
persistent in their work and do not finish homework tasks (Flunger et al.,
2015). Similarly, students may spend more time on homework because they
have difficulties learning and concentrating, low expectations and motivation
or because they need more direct help (Trautwein et al., 2006), or maybe
because they put in a lot of effort and take a lot of care with their work
(Flunger et al., 2015). Something similar happens with sociological variables
such as gender: Girls spend more time on homework (Gershenson and Holt,
2015) but, compared to boys, in standardized tests they have better results in
reading and worse results in Science and Mathematics (OECD, 2013a).
On the other hand, thanks to multilevel studies, systematic effects on
performance have been found when homework time is considered at the class
or school level. De Jong et al. (2000) found that the number of assigned
homework tasks in a year was positively and significantly related to results in
mathematics. Equally, the volume or amount of homework (mean homework
time for the group) and the frequency of homework assignment have positive
effects on achievement. The data suggests that when frequency and volume
are considered together, the former has more impact on results than the latter
(Trautwein et al., 2002; Trautwein, 2007). In fact, it has been estimated that
in classrooms where homework is always assigned there are gains in
mathematics and science of 20% of a standard deviation over those
classrooms which sometimes assign homework (Fernández-Alonso et al.,
2015). Significant results have also been found in research which considered
only homework volume at the classroom or school level. Dettmers et al.
(2009) concluded that the school-level effect of homework is positive in the
majority of participating countries in PISA 2003, and the OECD (2013b), with
data from PISA 2012, confirms that schools in which students have more
weekly homework demonstrate better results once certain school and student-
background variables are discounted. To put it briefly, homework has a
multilevel nature (Trautwein and Köller, 2003) in which the variables have
different significance and effects according to the level of analysis, in this case
a positive effect at class level, and a negative or null effect in most cases at the
level of the individual. Furthermore, the fact that the clearest effects are seen
at the classroom and school level highlights the role of homework policy in
schools and teaching, over and above the time individual students spend on
homework.
From this complex context, this current study aims to explore the
relationships between the strategies schools use to assign homework and the
consequences that has on students' academic performance and on the
students' own homework strategies. There are two specific objectives, firstly,
to systematically analyze the differential effect of time spent on homework on
educational performance, both at school and individual level. We hypothesize
a positive effect for homework time at school level, and a negative effect at the
individual level. Secondly, the influence of homework quantity assigned by
schools on the distribution of time spent by students on homework will be
investigated. This will test the previously unexplored hypothesis that an
increase in the amount of homework assigned by each school will create an
increase in differences, both in time spent on homework by the students, and
in academic results. Confirming this hypothesis would mean that an excessive
amount of homework assigned by schools would penalize those students who
for various reasons (pace of work, gaps in learning, difficulties concentrating,
overexertion) need to spend more time completing their homework than their
peers. In order to resolve this apparent paradox we will calculate the optimum
volume of homework that schools should assign in order to benefit the largest
number of students without contributing to an increase in differences, that is,
without harming educational equity.

Methods
Participants
The population was defined as those students in year 8 of compulsory
education in the academic year 2009/10 in Spain. In order to provide a
representative sample, a stratified random sampling was carried out from the
19 autonomous regions in Spain. The sample was selected from each stratum
according to a two-stage cluster design (OECD, 2009, 2011, 2014a; Ministerio
de Educación, 2011). In the first stage, the primary units of the sample were
the schools, which were selected with a probability proportional to the number
of students in the 8th grade. The more 8th grade students in a given school,
the higher the likelihood of the school being selected. In the second stage, 35
students were selected from each school through simple, systematic sampling.
A detailed, step-by-step description of the sampling procedure may be found
in OECD (2011). The subsequent sample numbered 29,153 students from 933
schools. Some students were excluded due to lack of information (absences on
the test day), or for having special educational needs. The baseline sample was
finally made up of 26,543 students. The mean student age was 14.4 with a
standard deviation of 0.75, rank of age from 13 to 16. Some 66.2% attended a
state school; 49.7% were girls; 87.8% were Spanish nationals; 73.5% were in
the school year appropriate to their age, the remaining 26.5% were at least 1
year behind in terms of their age.
Procedure
Test application, marking, and data recording were contracted out via public
tendering, and were carried out by qualified personnel unconnected to the
schools. The evaluation, was performed on two consecutive days, each day
having two 50 min sessions separated by a break. At the end of the second day
the students completed a context questionnaire which included questions
related to homework. The evaluation was carried out in compliance with
current ethical standards in Spain. Families of the students selected to
participate in the evaluation were informed about the study by the school
administrations, and were able to choose whether those students would
participate in the study or not.
Instruments

Tests of Academic Performance

The performance test battery consisted of 342 items evaluating four subjects:
Spanish (106 items), mathematics (73 items), science (78), and citizenship
(85). The items, completed on paper, were in various formats and were subject
to binary scoring, except 21 items which were coded on a polytomous scale,
between 0 and 2 points (Ministerio de Educación, 2011). As a single student is
not capable of answering the complete item pool in the time given, the items
were distributed across various booklets following a matrix design
(Fernández-Alonso and Muñiz, 2011). The mean Cronbach α for the booklets
ranged from 0.72 (mathematics) to 0.89 (Spanish). Student scores were
calculated adjusting the bank of items to Rasch's IRT model using the
ConQuest 2.0 program (Wu et al., 2007) and were expressed in a scale with
mean and standard deviation of 500 and 100 points respectively. The
student's scores were divided into five categories, estimated using the
plausible values method. In large scale assessments this method is better at
recovering the true population parameters (e.g., mean, standard deviation)
than estimates of scores using methods of maximum likelihood or expected a-
posteriori estimations (Mislevy et al., 1992; OECD, 2009; von Davier et al.,
2009).
Homework Variables
A questionnaire was made up of a mix of items which allowed the calculation
of the indicators used for the description of homework variables. Daily
minutes spent on homework was calculated from a multiple choice question
with the following options: (a) Generally I don't have homework; (b) 1 h or
less; (c) Between 1 and 2 h; (d) Between 2 and 3 h; (e) More than 3 h. The
options were recoded as follows: (a) = 0 min.; (b) = 45 min.; (c) = 90 min.; (d)
= 150 min.; (e) = 210 min. According to Trautwein and Köller (2003) the
average homework time of the students in a school could be regarded as a
good proxy for the amount of homework assigned by the teacher. So the mean
of this variable for each school was used as an estimator of Amount or volume
of homework assigned.
Control Variables
Four variables were included to describe sociological factors about the
students, three were binary: Gender (1 = female); Nationality (1 = Spanish;
0 = other); School type (1 = state school; 0 = private). The fourth variable
was Socioeconomic and cultural index (SECI), which is constructed with
information about family qualifications and professions, along with the
availability of various material and cultural resources at home. It is expressed
in standardized points, N(0,1). Three variables were used to gather
educational history: Appropriate School Year (1 = being in the school year
appropriate to their age; 0 = repeated a school year). The other two
adjustment variables were Academic Expectations and Motivation which were
included for two reasons: they are both closely connected to academic
achievement (Suárez-Álvarez et al., 2014). Their position as adjustment
factors is justified because, in an ex-post facto descriptive design such as this,
both expectations and motivation may be thought of as background variables
that the student brings with them on the day of the test. Academic
expectations for finishing education was measured with a multiple-choice
item where the score corresponds to the years spent in education in order to
reach that level of qualification: compulsory secondary education (10 points);
further secondary education (12 points); non-university higher education (14
points); University qualification (16 points). Motivation was constructed from
the answers to six four-point Likert items, where 1 means strongly disagree
with the sentence and 4 means strongly agree. Students scoring highly in this
variable are agreeing with statements such as “at school I learn useful and
interesting things.” A Confirmatory Factor Analysis was performed using a
Maximum Likelihood robust estimation method (MLMV) and the items fit an
essentially unidimensional scale: CFI = 0.954; TLI = 0.915; SRMR = 0.037;
RMSEA = 0.087 (90% CI = 0.084–0.091).
As this was an official evaluation, the tests used were created by experts in the
various fields, contracted by the Spanish Ministry of Education in
collaboration with the regional education authorities.
Data Analyses
Firstly the descriptive statistics and Pearson correlations between the
variables were calculated. Then, using the HLM 6.03 program (Raudenbush et
al., 2004), two three-level hierarchical-linear models (student, school,
autonomous community) were produced for each subject being evaluated: a
null model (without predictor variables) and a random intercept model in
which adjustment variables and homework variables were introduced at the
same time. Given that HLM does not return standardized coefficients, all of
the variables were standardized around the general mean, which allows the
interpretation of the results as classical standardized regression analysis
coefficients. Levels 2 and 3 variables were constructed from means of
standardized level 1 variables and were not re-standardized. Level 1 variables
were introduced without centering except for four cases: study time,
motivation, expectation, and socioeconomic and cultural level which were
centered on the school mean to control composition effects (Xu and Wu, 2013)
and estimate the effect of differences in homework time among the students
within the same school. The range of missing variable cases was very small,
between 1 and 3%. Recovery was carried out using the procedure described
in Fernández-Alonso et al. (2012).
The results are presented in two ways: the tables show standardized
coefficients while in the figures the data are presented in a real scale, taking
advantage of the fact that a scale with a 100 point standard deviation allows
the expression of the effect of the variables and the differences between groups
as percentage increases in standardized points.

Results
Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics and the matrix of correlations between
the study variables. As can be seen in the table, the relationship between the
variables turned out to be in the expected direction, with the closest
correlations between the different academic performance scores and
socioeconomic level, appropriate school year, and student expectations. The
nationality variable gave the highest asymmetry and kurtosis, which was to be
expected as the majority of the sample are Spanish.

TABLE 1

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and Pearson correlation matrix

between the variables.

Table 2 shows the distribution of variance in the null model. In the four

subjects taken together, 85% of the variance was found at the student level,
10% was variance between schools, and 5% variance between regions.
Although the 10% of variance between schools could seem modest, underlying
that there were large differences. For example, in Spanish the 95% plausible
value range for the school means ranged between 577 and 439 points,
practically 1.5 standard deviations, which shows that schools have a significant
impact on student results.
TABLE 2

Table 2. Distribution of the variance in the null model.

Table 3 gives the standardized coefficients of the independent variables of the

four multilevel models, as well as the percentage of variance explained by each
level.
TABLE 3

Table 3. Multilevel models for prediction of achievement in four

subjects.

The results indicated that the adjustment variables behaved satisfactorily,

with enough control to analyze the net effects of the homework variables. This
was backed up by two results, firstly, the two variables with highest
standardized coefficients were those related to educational history: academic
expectations at the time of the test, and being in the school year corresponding
to age. Motivation demonstrated a smaller effect but one which was significant
in all cases. Secondly, the adjustment variables explained the majority of the
variance in the results. The percentages of total explained variance in
Table 2 were calculated with all variables. However, if the strategy had been to
introduce the adjustment variables first and then add in the homework
variables, the explanatory gain in the second model would have been about 2%
in each subject.
The amount of homework turned out to be positively and significantly
associated with the results in the four subjects. In a 100 point scale of
standard deviation, controlling for other variables, it was estimated that for
each 10 min added to the daily volume of homework, schools would achieve
between 4.1 and 4.8 points more in each subject, with the exception of
mathematics where the increase would be around 2.5 points. In other words,
an increase of between 15 and 29 points in the school mean is predicted for
each additional hour of homework volume of the school as a whole. This
school level gain, however, would only occur if the students spent exactly the
same time on homework as their school mean. As the regression coefficient of
student homework time is negative and the variable is centered on the level of
the school, the model predicts deterioration in results for those students who
spend more time than their class mean on homework, and an improvement
for those who finish their homework more quickly than the mean of their
classmates.

Furthermore, the results demonstrated a positive association between the

amount of homework assigned in a school and the differences in time needed
by the students to complete their homework. Figure 1 shows the relationship
between volume of homework (expressed as mean daily minutes of homework
by school) and the differences in time spent by students (expressed as the
standard deviation from the mean school daily minutes). The correlation
between the variables was 0.69 and the regression gradient indicates that
schools which assigned 60 min of homework per day had a standard deviation
in time spent by students on homework of approximately 25 min, whereas in
those schools assigning 120 min of homework, the standard deviation was
twice as long, and was over 50 min. So schools which assigned more
homework also tended to demonstrate greater differences in the time students
need to spend on that homework.
FIGURE 1
Figure 1. Relationship between school homework volume and
differences in time needed by students to complete homework.

Figure 2 shows the effect on results in mathematics of the combination of

homework time, homework amount, and the variance of homework time
associated with the amount of homework assigned in two types of schools: in
type 1 schools the amount of homework assigned is 1 h, and in type 2 schools
the amount of homework 2 h. The result in mathematics was used as a
dependent variable because, as previously noted, it was the subject where the
effect was smallest and as such is the most conservative prediction. With other
subjects the results might be even clearer.
FIGURE 2

Figure 2. Prediction of results for quick and slow students

according to school homework size.

Looking at the first standard deviation of student homework time shown in

the first graph, it was estimated that in type 1 schools, which assign 1 h of daily
homework, a quick student (one who finishes their homework before 85% of
their classmates) would spend a little over half an hour (35 min), whereas the
slower student, who spends more time than 85% of classmates, would need
almost an hour and a half of work each day (85 min). In type 2 schools, where
the homework amount is 2 h a day, the differences increase from just over an
hour (65 min for a quick student) to almost 3 h (175 min for a slow student).
Figure 2 shows how the differences in performance would vary within a school
between the more and lesser able students according to amount of homework
assigned. In type 1 schools, with 1 h of homework per day, the difference in
achievement between quick and slow students would be around 5% of a
standard deviation, while in schools assigning 2 h per day the difference would
be 12%. On the other hand, the slow student in a type 2 school would score 6
points more than the quick student in a type 1 school. However, to achieve
this, the slow student in a type 2 school would need to spend five times as
much time on homework in a week (20.4 weekly hours rather than 4.1). It
seems like a lot of work for such a small gain.
Discussion and Conclusions
The data in this study reaffirm the multilevel nature of homework (Trautwein
and Köller, 2003) and support this study's first hypothesis: the amount of
homework (mean daily minutes the student spends on homework) is
positively associated with academic results, whereas the time students spent
on homework considered individually is negatively associated with academic
results. These findings are in line with previous research, which indicate that
school-level variables, such as amount of homework assigned, have more
explanatory power than individual variables such as time spent (De Jong et al.,
2000; Dettmers et al., 2010; Scheerens et al., 2013; Fernández-Alonso et al.,
2015). In this case it was found that for each additional hour of homework
assigned by a school, a gain of 25% of a standard deviation is expected in all
subjects except mathematics, where the gain is around 15%. On the basis of
this evidence, common sense would dictate the conclusion that frequent and
abundant homework assignment may be one way to improve school efficiency.
However, as noted previously, the relationship between homework and
achievement is paradoxical- appearances are deceptive and first conclusions
are not always confirmed. Analysis demonstrates another two complementary
pieces of data which, read together, raise questions about the previous
conclusion. In the first place, time spent on homework at the individual level
was found to have a negative effect on achievement, which confirms the
findings of other multilevel-approach research (Trautwein, 2007; Trautwein et
al., 2009b; Chang et al., 2014; Fernández-Alonso et al., 2016). Furthermore, it
was found that an increase in assigned homework volume is associated with
an increase in the differences in time students need to complete it. Taken
together, the conclusion is that, schools with more homework tend to exhibit
more variation in student achievement. These results seem to confirm our
second hypothesis, as a positive covariation was found between the amount of
homework in a school (the mean homework time by school) and the increase
in differences within the school, both in student homework time and in the
academic results themselves. The data seem to be in line with those who argue
that homework is a source of inequity because it affects those less
academically-advantaged students and students with greater limitations in
their home environments (Kohn, 2006; Rømming, 2011; OECD, 2013b).
This new data has clear implications for educational action and school
homework policies, especially in compulsory education. If quality compulsory
education is that which offers the best results for the largest number (Barber
and Mourshed, 2007; Mourshed et al., 2010), then assigning an excessive
volume of homework at those school levels could accentuate differences,
affecting students who are slower, have more gaps in their knowledge, or are
less privileged, and can make them feel overwhelmed by the amount of
homework assigned to them (Martinez, 2011; OECD, 2014b; Suárez et al.,
2016). The data show that in a school with 60 min of assigned homework, a
quick student will need just 4 h a week to finish their homework, whereas a
slow student will spend 10 h a week, 2.5 times longer, with the additional
aggravation of scoring one twentieth of a standard deviation below their
quicker classmates. And in a school assigning 120 min of homework per day, a
quick student will need 7.5 h per week whereas a slow student will have to
triple this time (20 h per week) to achieve a result one eighth worse, that is,
more time for a relatively worse result.
It might be argued that the differences are not very large, as between 1 and 2 h
of assigned homework, the level of inequality increases 7% on a standardized
scale. But this percentage increase has been estimated after statistically, or
artificially, accounting for sociological and psychological student factors and
other variables at school and region level. The adjustment variables influence
both achievement and time spent on homework, so it is likely that in a real
classroom situation the differences estimated here might be even larger. This
is especially important in comprehensive education systems, like the Spanish
(Eurydice, 2015), in which the classroom groups are extremely heterogeneous,
with a variety of students in the same class in terms of ability, interest, and
motivation, in which the aforementioned variables may operate more strongly.
The results of this research must be interpreted bearing in mind a number of
limitations. The most significant limitation in the research design is the lack of
a measure of previous achievement, whether an ad hoc test (Murillo and
Martínez-Garrido, 2013) or school grades (Núñez et al., 2014), which would
allow adjustment of the data. In an attempt to alleviate this, our research has
placed special emphasis on the construction of variables which would work to
exclude academic history from the model. The use of the repetition of school
year variable was unavoidable because Spain has one of the highest levels of
repetition in the European Union (Eurydice, 2011) and repeating students
achieve worse academic results (Ministerio de Educación, 2011). Similarly, the
expectation and motivation variables were included in the group of
adjustment factors assuming that in this research they could be considered
background variables. In this way, once the background factors are
discounted, the homework variables explain 2% of the total variance, which is
similar to estimations from other multilevel studies (De Jong et al.,
2000; Trautwein, 2007; Dettmers et al., 2009; Fernández-Alonso et al., 2016).
On the other hand, the statistical models used to analyze the data are
correlational, and as such, one can only speak of an association between
variables and not of directionality or causality in the analysis. As Trautwein
and Lüdtke (2009) noted, the word “effect” must be understood as “predictive
effect.” In other words, it is possible to say that the amount of homework is
connected to performance; however, it is not possible to say in which direction
the association runs. Another aspect to be borne in mind is that the homework
time measures are generic -not segregated by subject- when it its understood
that time spent and homework behavior are not consistent across all subjects
(Trautwein et al., 2006; Trautwein and Lüdtke, 2007). Nonetheless, when the
dependent variable is academic results it has been found that the relationship
between homework time and achievement is relatively stable across all
subjects (Lubbers et al., 2010; Chang et al., 2014) which leads us to believe
that the results given here would have changed very little even if the
homework-related variables had been separated by subject.
Future lines of research should be aimed toward the creation of
comprehensive models which incorporate a holistic vision of homework. It
must be recognized that not all of the time spent on homework by a student is
time well spent (Valle et al., 2015). In addition, research has demonstrated the
importance of other variables related to student behavior such as rate of
completion, the homework environment, organization, and task management,
autonomy, parenting styles, effort, and the use of study techniques
(Zimmerman and Kitsantas, 2005; Xu, 2008, 2013; Kitsantas and
Zimmerman, 2009; Kitsantas et al., 2011; Ramdass and Zimmerman,
2011; Bembenutty and White, 2013; Xu and Wu, 2013; Xu et al., 2014; Rosário
et al., 2015a; Osorio and González-Cámara, 2016; Valle et al., 2016), as well as
the role of expectation, value given to the task, and personality traits (Lubbers
et al., 2010; Goetz et al., 2012; Pedrosa et al., 2016). Along the same lines,
research has also indicated other important variables related to teacher
homework policies, such as reasons for assignment, control and feedback,
assignment characteristics, and the adaptation of tasks to the students' level of
learning (Trautwein et al., 2009a; Dettmers et al., 2010; Patall et al.,
2010; Buijs and Admiraal, 2013; Murillo and Martínez-Garrido, 2013; Rosário
et al., 2015b). All of these should be considered in a comprehensive model of
homework.
In short, the data seem to indicate that in year 8 of compulsory education, 60–
70 min of homework a day is a recommendation that, slightly more
optimistically than Cooper's (2001) “10 min rule,” gives a reasonable gain for
the whole school, without exaggerating differences or harming students with
greater learning difficulties or who work more slowly, and is in line with other
available evidence (Fernández-Alonso et al., 2015). These results have
significant implications when it comes to setting educational policy in schools,
sending a clear message to head teachers, teachers and those responsible for
education. The results of this research show that assigning large volumes of
homework increases inequality between students in pursuit of minimal gains
in achievement for those who least need it. Therefore, in terms of school
efficiency, and with the aim of improving equity in schools it is recommended
that educational policies be established which optimize all students'
achievement.
Ethics Statement
This study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the
University of Oviedo with written informed consent from all subjects. All
subjects gave written informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of
Helsinki. The protocol was approved by the University of Oviedo.

Author Contributions
RF and JM have designed the research; RF and JS have analyzed the data; MA
and JM have interpreted the data; RF, MA, and JS have drafted the paper; JM
has revised it critically; all authors have provided final approval of the version
to be published and have ensured the accuracy and integrity of the work.

Funding
This research was funded by the Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad del
Gobierno de España. References: PSI2014-56114-P, BES2012-053488. We
would like to express our utmost gratitude to the Ministerio de Educación
Cultura y Deporte del Gobierno de España and to the Consejería de Educación
y Cultura del Gobierno del Principado de Asturias, without whose
collaboration this research would not have been possible.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any
commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential
conflict of interest.

References
Barber, B. (1986). Homework does not belong on the agenda for educational
reform. Educ. Leadersh. 43, 55–57.
Google Scholar
Barber, M., and Mourshed, M. (2007). How the World's Best-Performing
School Systems Come Out on Top. McKinsey and Company. Available online
at: http://mckinseyonsociety.com/downloads/reports/Education/Worlds_Sc
hool_Systems_Final.pdf (Accessed January 25, 2016).

Bembenutty, H., and White, M. C. (2013). Academic performance and

satisfaction with homework completion among college students. Learn.
Individ. Differ. 24, 83–88. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2012.10.013
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Buijs, M., and Admiraal, W. (2013). Homework assignments to enhance
student engagement in secondary education. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 28, 767–
779. doi: 10.1007/s10212-012-0139-0
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Chang, C. B., Wall, D., Tare, M., Golonka, E., and Vatz, K. (2014). Relations of
attitudes toward homework and time spent on homework to course outcomes:
the case of foreign language learning. J. Educ. Psychol. 106, 1049–1065. doi:
10.1037/a0036497
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Cooper, H. (1989). Synthesis of research on homework. Educ. Leadersh. 47,
85–91.
Google Scholar
Cooper, H. (2001). The Battle Over Homework: Common Ground for
Administrators, Teachers, and Parents. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Google Scholar
Cooper, H., Robinson, J. C., and Patall, E. A. (2006). Does homework improve
academic achievement? A synthesis of research, 1987-2003. Rev. Educ.
Res. 76, 1–62. doi: 10.3102/00346543076001001
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Cooper, H., Steenbergen-Hu, S., and Dent, A. L. (2012). “Homework,” in APA
Educational Psychology Handbook, Vol. 3: Application to Learning and
Teaching, eds K. R. Harris, S. Graham, and T. Urdan (Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association), 475–495.
Google Scholar
Cooper, H., and Valentine, J. C. (2001). Using research to answer practical
questions about homework. Educ. Psychol. 36, 143–153. doi:
10.1207/S15326985EP3603_1
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Corno, L. (1996). Homework is a complicated thing. Educ. Res. 25, 27–30.
doi: 10.3102/0013189X025008027
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
De Jong, R., Westerhof, K. J., and Creemers, B. P. M. (2000). Homework and
student math achievement in junior high schools. Educ. Res. Eval. 6, 130–157.
doi: 10.1076/1380-3611(200006)6:2;1-E;F130
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Dettmers, S., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, M., Kunter, M., and Baumert, J. (2010).
Homework works if homework quality is high: using multilevel modeling to
predict the development of achievement in mathematics. J. Educ.
Psychol. 102, 467–482. doi: 10.1037/a0018453
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Dettmers, S., Trautwein, U., and Lüdtke, O. (2009). The relationship between
homework time and achievement is not universal: evidence from multilevel
analyses in 40 countries. Sch. Eff. Sch. Improv. 20, 375–405. doi:
10.1080/09243450902904601
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Epstein, J. L., and Van Voorhis, F. L. (2001). More than minutes: teachers'
roles in designing homework. Educ. Psychol. 36, 181–193. doi:
10.1207/S15326985EP3603_4
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Eurydice (2015). The Structure of the European Education Systems 2015/16:
Schematic Diagrams. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European
Union. Available online
at: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Publicatio
ns:The_Structure_of_the_European_Education_Systems_2015/16:_Schema
tic_Diagrams (Accessed January 25, 2016).

Eurydice (2011). Grade Retention during Compulsory Education in Europe:

Regulations and Statistics. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European
Union.

Fan, H., Xu, J., Cai, Z., He, J., and Fan, X. (2017). Homework and students'
achievement in math and science: a 30-year meta-analysis, 1986-2015. Educ.
Res. Rev. 20, 35–54. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2016.11.003
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Farrow, S., Tymms, P., and Henderson, B. (1999). Homework and attainment
in primary schools. Br. Educ. Res. J. 25, 323–341. doi:
10.1080/0141192990250304
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Fernández-Alonso, R., and Muñiz, J. (2011). Diseños de cuadernillos para la
evaluación de competencias b1sicas. Aula Abierta 39, 3–34.

Fernández-Alonso, R., Suárez-Álvarez, J., and Muñiz, J. (2012). Imputación

de datos perdidos en las evaluaciones diagnósticas educativas. [Imputation
methods for missing data in educational diagnostic
evaluation]. Psicothema 24, 167–175.
Google Scholar
Fernández-Alonso, R., Suárez-Álvarez, J., and Muñiz, J. (2014). Tareas
escolares en el hogar y rendimiento en matemáticas: una aproximación
multinivel con estudiantes de enseñanza primaria. [Homework and academic
performance in mathematics: A multilevel approach with primary school
student]. Rev. Psicol. Educ. 9, 15–30.

Fernández-Alonso, R., Suárez-Álvarez, J., and Muñiz, J. (2015). Adolescents'

homework performance in mathematics and science: personal factors and
teaching practices. J. Educ. Psychol. 107, 1075–1085. doi:
10.1037/edu0000032
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Fernández-Alonso, R., Suárez-Álvarez, J., and Muñiz, J. (2016). Homework
and performance in mathematics: the role of the teacher, the family and the
student's background. Rev. Psicod. 21, 5–23. doi:
10.1387/RevPsicodidact.13939
CrossRef Full Text
Flunger, B., Trautwein, U., Nagengast, B., Lüdtke, O., Niggli, A., and
Schnyder, I. (2015). The Janus-faced nature of time spent on homework: using
latent profile analyses to predict academic achievement over a school
year. Lear. Instr. 39, 97–106. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.05.008
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Gershenson, S., and Holt, S. B. (2015). Gender gaps in high school students'
homework time. Educ. Res. 44, 432–441. doi: 10.3102/0013189X15616123
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Goetz, T., Nett, U. E., Martiny, S. E., Hall, N. C., Pekrun, R., Dettmers, S., et al.
(2012). Students' emotions during homework: structures, self-concept
antecedents, and achievement outcomes. Learn. Individ. Differ. 22, 225–234.
doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2011.04.006
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Goldstein, A. (1960). Does homework help? A review of research. Elementary
Sch. J. 60, 212–224. doi: 10.1086/459804
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Kitsantas, A., Cheema, J., and Ware, H. (2011). The role of homework support
resources, time spent on homework, and self-efficacy beliefs in mathematics
achievement. J. Adv. Acad. 22, 312–341. doi: 10.1177/1932202X1102200206
CrossRef Full Text
Kitsantas, A., and Zimmerman, B. J. (2009). College students homework and
academic achievement: the mediating role of self-regulatory
beliefs. Metacognition Learn. 4, 1556–1623. doi: 10.1007/s11409-008-9028-y
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Kohn, A. (2006). Abusing research: the study of homework and other
examples. Phi Delta Kappan 88, 9–22. doi: 10.1177/003172170608800105
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Lubbers, M. J., Van Der Werf, M. P. C., Kuyper, H., and Hendriks, A. A. J.
(2010). Does homework behavior mediate the relation between personality
and academic performance? Learn. Individ. Differ. 20, 203–208. doi:
10.1016/j.lindif.2010.01.005
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Martinez, S. (2011). An examination of Latino students' homework routines. J.
Latinos Educ. 10, 354–368. doi: 10.1080/15348431.2011.605688
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Mislevy, R. J., Beaton, A. E., Kaplan, B., and Sheehan, K. M. (1992).
Estimating population characteristics from sparse matrix samples of item
responses. J. Educ. Meas. 29, 133–161. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-
3984.1992.tb00371.x
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Ministerio de Educación (2011). Evaluación General de Diagnóstico 2010.
Educación Secundaria Obligatoria. Informe de Resultados. Madrid: Instituto
de Evaluación. Available online
at: http://www.mecd.gob.es/dctm/ievaluacion/informe-egd-2010.pdf?
documentId=0901e72b80d5ad3e (Accessed January 25, 2016).
Mourshed, M., Chijioke, C., and Barber, M. (2010). How the World's Most
Improved School Systems Keep Getting Better. McKinsey and Company.
Available online
at: http://mckinseyonsociety.com/downloads/reports/Education/How-the-
Worlds-Most-Improved-School-Systems-Keep-Getting-Better_Download-
version_Final.pdf (Accessed January 25, 2016).

Murillo, F. J., and Martínez-Garrido, C. (2013). Homework influence on

academic performance. A study of iberoamerican students of primary
education. J. Psychodidactics 18, 157–171. doi: 10.1387/RevPsicodidact.6156
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Núñez, J. C., Vallejo, G., Rosário, P., Tuero, E., and Valle, A. (2014). Student,
teacher, and school context variables predicting academic achievement in
biology: analysis from a multilevel perspective. J. Psychodidactics 19, 145–171.
doi: 10.1387/RevPsicodidact.7127
CrossRef Full Text
OECD (2009). PISA Data Analysis Manual: SPSS, 2nd Edn. Paris: OECD
Publishing.

OECD (2011). School Sampling Preparation Manual. PISA 2012 Main

Survey. Paris: OECD Publishing. Available online
at: https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/PISA2012MS-
SamplingGuidelines-.pdf (Accessed January 6, 2017).

OECD (2013a). PISA 2012 Results: What Students Know and Can Do.
Student Performance in Mathematics, Reading and Science (Volume I).
Paris: OECD Publishing.

OECD (2013b). PISA 2012 Results: What Makes Schools Successful?

Resources, Policies and Practices (Volume IV). Paris: OECD Publishing.

OECD (2014a). PISA 2012 Technical Report. Paris: OECD Publishing.

Available online at: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/PISA-2012-
technical-report-final.pdf (Accessed January 25, 2016).
OECD (2014b). Does Homework Perpetuate Inequities in Education? PISA in
Focus. Paris: OECD Publishing.

Osorio, A., and González-Cámara, M. (2016). Testing the alleged superiority of

the indulgent parenting style among Spanish adolescents. Psicothema 28,
414–420. doi: 10.7334/psicothema2015.314
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Paschal, R. A., Weinstein, T., and Walberg, H. J. (1984). The effects of
homework on learning: a quantitative synthesis. J. Educ. Res. 78, 97–104. doi:
10.1080/00220671.1984.10885581
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Patall, E. A., Cooper, H., and Wynn, S. R. (2010). The effectiveness and
relative importance of providing choices in the classroom. J. Educ.
Psychol. 102, 896–915. doi: 10.1037/a0019545
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Pedrosa, I., Suárez-Álvarez, J., García-Cueto, E., and Muñiz, J. (2016). A
computerized adaptive test for enterprising personality assessment in
youth. Psicothema 28, 471–478. doi: 10.7334/psicothema2016.68
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Ramdass, D., and Zimmerman, B. J. (2011). Developing self-regulation skills:
the important role of homework. J. Adv. Acad. 22, 194–218. doi:
10.1177/1932202X1102200202
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., Cheong, Y. F., and Congdon, R. T.
(2004). HLM6: Hierarchical Linear and Nonlinear Modeling. Chicago:
Scientific Software International.

Rømming, M. (2011). Who benefits from homework assignments? Econ. Educ.

Rev. 30, 55–64. doi: 10.1016/j.econedurev.2010.07.001
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Rosário, P., Núñez, J. C., Vallejo, G., Cunha, J., Nunes, T., Mourão, R., et al.
(2015a). Does homework design matter? The role of homework's purpose in
student mathematics achievement. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 43, 10–24. doi:
10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.08.001
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Rosário, P., Núñez, J. C., Vallejo, G., Cunha, J., Nunes, T., Suárez, N., et al.
(2015b). The effects of teachers' homework follow-up practices on students'
EFL performance: a randomized-group design. Front. Psychol. 6:1528. doi:
10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01528
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Servicio de Evaluación Educativa del Principado de Asturias (2016). La
relación entre el tiempo de deberes y los resultados académicos [The
Relationship between Homework Time and Academic Performance].
Informes de Evaluación, 1. Oviedo: Consejería de Educación y Cultura del
Gobierno del Principado de Asturias.

Scheerens, J., Hendriks, M., Luyten, H., Sleegers, P., and Cees, G.
(2013). Productive Time in Education. A Review of the Effectiveness of
Teaching Time at School, Homework and Extended Time Outside School
Hours. Enschede: University of Twente. Available online
at: http://doc.utwente.nl/86371/ (Accessed January 25, 2016).

Suárez-Álvarez, J., Fernández-Alonso, R., and Muñiz, J. (2014). Self-concept,

motivation, expectations and socioeconomic level as predictors of academic
performance in mathematics. Learn. Indiv. Diff. 30, 118–123. doi:
10.1016/j.lindif.2013.10.019
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Suárez, N., Regueiro, B., Epstein, J. L., Piñeiro, I., Díaz, S. M., and Valle, A.
(2016). Homework involvement and academic achievement of native and
immigrant students. Front. Psychol. 7:1517. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01517
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Trautwein, U. (2007). The homework–achievement relation reconsidered:
differentiating homework time, homework frequency, and homework
effort. Learn. Instr. 17, 372–388. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.02.009
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Trautwein, U., and Köller, O. (2003). The relationship between homework and
achievement: still much of a mystery. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 15, 115–145. doi:
10.1023/A:1023460414243
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Trautwein, U., Köller, O., Schmitz, B., and Baumert, J. (2002). Do homework
assignments enhance achievement? A multilevel analysis in 7th grade
mathematics. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 27, 26–50. doi:
10.1006/ceps.2001.1084
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Schnyder, I., and Niggli, A. (2006). Predicting
homework effort: support for a domain-specific, multilevel homework
model. J. Educ. Psychol. 98, 438–456. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.98.2.438
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Trautwein, U., and Lüdtke, O. (2007). Students' self-reported effort and time
on homework in six school subjects: between-student differences and within-
student variation. J. Educ. Psychol. 99, 432–444. doi: 10.1037/0022-
0663.99.2.432
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Trautwein, U., and Lüdtke, O. (2009). Predicting homework motivation and
homework effort in six school subjects: the role of person and family
characteristics, classroom factors, and school track. Learn. Instr. 19, 243–258.
doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.05.001
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Trautwein, U., Niggli, A., Schnyder, I., and Lüdtke, O. (2009a). Between-
teacher differences in homework assignments and the development of
students' homework effort, homework emotions, and achievement. J. Educ.
Psychol. 101, 176–189. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.101.1.176
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Trautwein, U., Schnyder, I., Niggli, A., Neumann, M., and Lüdtke, O. (2009b).
Chameleon effects in homework research: the homework–achievement
association depends on the measures used and the level of analysis
chosen. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 34, 77–88. doi:
10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.09.001
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Valle, A., Pan, I., Regueiro, B., Suárez, N., Tuero, E., and Nunes, A. R. (2015).
Predicting approach to homework in primary school students. Psicothema 27,
334–340. doi: 10.7334/psicothema2015.118
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Valle, A., Regueiro, B., Núñez, J. C., Rodríguez, S., Piñero, I., and Rosário, P.
(2016). Academic goals, student homework engagement, and academic
achievement in elementary school. Front. Psychol. 7:463. doi:
10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00463
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
von Davier, M., Gonzalez, E., and Mislevy, R. J. (2009). What are Plausible
Values and Why are They Useful?. IERI Monograph Series. Issues and
Methodologies in Large-Scale Assessments. Available online
at: http://www.ierinstitute.org/fileadmin/Documents/IERI_Monograph/
IERI_Monograph_Volume_02.pdf (Accessed January 15, 2017).

Walberg, H. J., Paschal, R. A., and Weinstein, T. (1985). Homework's powerful

effects on learning. Educ. Leadersh. 42, 76–79.
Google Scholar
Walberg, H. J., Paschal, R. A., and Weinstein, T. (1986). Walberg and
colleagues reply: effective schools use homework effectively. Educ.
Leadersh. 43, 58.
Google Scholar
Wu, M. L., Adams, R. J., Wilson, M. R., and Haldane, S. A. (2007). ACER
ConQuest 2.0: Generalised Item Response Modelling Software. Camberwell,
VIC: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Google Scholar
Xu, J. (2008). Models of secondary school students' interest in homework: a
multilevel analysis. Am. Educ. Res. J. 45, 1180–1205. doi:
10.3102/0002831208323276
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Xu, J. (2013). Why do students have difficulties completing homework? The
need for homework management. J. Educ. Train. Stud. 1, 98–105. doi:
10.11114/jets.v1i1.78
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Xu, J., and Wu, H. (2013). Self-regulation of homework behavior: homework
management at the secondary school level. J. Educ. Res. 106, 1–13. doi:
10.1080/00220671.2012.658457
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Xu, J., Yuan, R., Xu, B., and Xu, M. (2014). Modeling students' time
management in math homework. Learn. Individ. Differ. 34, 33–42. doi:
10.1016/j.lindif.2014.05.011
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Zimmerman, B. J., and Kitsantas, A. (2005). Homework practices and
academic achievement: the mediating role of self-efficacy and perceived
responsibility beliefs. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 30, 397–417. doi:
10.1016/j.cedpsych.2005.05.003
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Keywords: homework time, equity, compulsory secondary education, hierarchical modeling,
adolescents
Citation: Fernández-Alonso R, Álvarez-Díaz M, Suárez-Álvarez J and Muñiz J (2017) Students'
Achievement and Homework Assignment Strategies. Front. Psychol. 8:286. doi:
10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00286
Received: 16 November 2016; Accepted: 14 February 2017;
Published: 07 March 2017.
Edited by:
José Jesús Gázquez, University of Almería, Spain
Reviewed by:
Trude Nilsen, University of Olso, Norway
Eva M. Romera, University of Córdoba, Spain
Copyright © 2017 Fernández-Alonso, Álvarez-Díaz, Suárez-Álvarez and Muñiz. This is an
open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
(CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the
original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited,
in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted
which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Javier Suárez-Álvarez, [email protected]
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not
necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors
and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made
by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the pub